Designing Together: end-user
collaboration in designing a
personalised product
Bernabei, Rina
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
r.bernabei@unsw.edu.au
Power, Jacqueline
University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia
Jacqueline.Power@utas.edu.au
Abstract
Donald Norman (2004, p. 224) has said, “We are all designers” in recognition of the many design
acts we perform everyday in our lives. Yet, true ability for end-users to be part of the design
process has been previously limited. Involvement in participatory design generally allows
participation by end-users in the initial design development phases, whilst mass-customisation
allows involvement in customising the product from a set of pre-determined design selections.
These are well-established design methods.
Today, new ways of making, manufacturing and distributing products are being facilitated by the
World Wide Web. Arguably, a designer-led open and democratic approach has resulted in endusers having more involvement in the design process than ever before. In particular, this method
is illustrated by designers shifting away from designing a finished product, to either designing
components, a template or a set of design tools for the end-user to interact with. This model,
which the authors term user-completion, is still in its infancy phases and requires distillation of how
designers can make use of it and how it differs to other design models. The authors will argue
that this is a model that operates at the intersection between mass-customisation and craft.
Firstly, the paper will question why end-users increasingly want to be a part of the design process,
and how through their involvement and investment of effort, the product acquires added
perceived emotional value. Secondly, co-design and mass customisation will be described. Finally,
the user-completion model proposed by the authors will be outlined, and supported with an
example of work that illustrates this method of designing.
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
1 | Page
KEYWORDS: personalisation, user completion, bernabeifreeman
Introduction
Product design was once the realm of designers and manufacturers, a mysterious world of
patents, copyright and in-house processes, a world in which the end-user was not directly
involved. In recent years design has become democratised with end-users, both individuals and
other businesses, increasingly able to be part of the design process. This involvement enables
end-users to help customise designs for their needs, and therefore not have to rely on others to
interpret their requirements. Today there are numerous ways in which the end-user can be part of
the design process, and many of these methods are well established and documented. In this
paper two established approaches will be discussed; co-design and mass customisation. In both
of these approaches the end-user is involved in the design process in order to customise or
individualise their needs. These user design approaches differ from the traditional
designer/manufacturer led approach in which products are developed by a designer, based on a
client/manufacturer established brief. In the traditional approach “the users only role is to have
needs, which manufacturers then identify and fill by designing and producing new products”
(von Hippel, 2005, p. 64). In contrast this paper will consider user design approaches which allow
for designing together, and in particular a design model which the authors are calling usercompletion, in which the end-user is involved in forming a finished and personalised product.
Firstly, a discussion will be provided of why a designer may adopt a user design approach.
Secondly, an explanation of the strengths and limitations of two different user design approaches
- co-design and mass customisation - will be provided. Thirdly, an overview of what the authors’
are calling a user-completion approach will be provided. This approach has been devised to be
applied specifically to the last stages of the product design process and will therefore be explained
through the physical process of assembling and finishing a product or object. The perceived
value of the user-completion approach and point of difference within this broader field of user
design approaches will be discussed, in particular its similarities and differences to that of craft,
co-design and mass customisation. Fourthly, a case study of a lighting product recently designed
by one of the authors will be described as an example of a product designed using a usercompletion approach.
Why a user design approach?
A user design approach allows for the end-user to specify properties or design features that are
best suited to their wants and needs. The end-user is able to alter the product to some degree - to
customise it to their needs. This design approach has much merit if you accept that the end-user
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
2 | Page
understands their needs and desires best. This type of thinking first emerged in the 1970s in the
field of Participatory Design. In the 1980s the creative potential of end-users started to be
recognised within the business world. Alastair Fuad-Luke (2009, p. 143) has explained that the
business world shifted its perspective of customers in this period, with the realisation that endusers themselves had the potential to improve products. Many companies see the merit in
inviting end-users into the design process as it can “be used to build brand loyalty, to fit products
to the heterogeneous needs of the market, and to differentiate the offerings of a manufacturer”
(Wind & Rangaswamy, 2001, p. 15). It also offers feedback to companies about end-user
preferences and wants, allowing forecasting of future products. A customised product can also
command a higher price, as it fits the end-users needs best (Randall et al., 2007, p. 278).
From a designers point of view, end-user involvement in the design process can generate
products that are more desirable, may therefore be retained longer and be better suited to their
use. Ruth Mugge, Jan Schoormans and Hendrik Schifferstein (2009, p. 467-468) have explained
that when an end-user connects emotionally with a product, “the product ceases to be an
ordinary object and becomes extraordinary.” If an end-user is intimately involved with part of the
production process, such as in the manufacture stage, or in the assembly process, the emotional
bond formed is arguably greater. This development of a stronger emotional bond is the result of
the end-user investing time and energy into the product – proverbial ‘blood, sweat and tears.’ In
Emotional Bonding with Personalised Products, Mugge et al (2009, p. 469) have articulated that the:
“personalization process requires the investment of a great deal of effort, the person is occupied with the
product for an extended period of time, which may positively influence the strength of the emotional bond
with the product”.
Personalisation allows the end-user to alter, or add features to the product in order to best suit
their needs and desires. It can occur during different stages of the design process, but is better
known at the manufacture and assemble stage of product design, as is illustrated later in the
paper when discussing mass customisation. The undertaking of design personalisation allows the
end-user to tailor the product to their individual needs or personal aesthetic inclinations. As a
result, it helps the end-user to identify the product as their own (Mugge et al., 2009, p. 468).
Many designers and those involved in research understand the benefits of product
personalisation. From an end-users perspective however there are different reasons that may
drive the desire to be involved. End-users may want to be involved in the design process simply
for fun, or as a means to fulfill creative urges (Mugge et al, 2009, p. 468). Donald Norman (2004,
p. 224) has said, “We are all designers” in recognition of the many creative acts we perform
everyday. Although we are not all trained as designers, the urge to improve the material world
around us, to conceptualise and rethink objects and spaces, resides within us all. Sanders and
Stappers (2008, p. 9) perhaps encapsulate this best in their statement that, “all people are
creative…”
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
3 | Page
Co-design and mass customisation
The recognition of individual creativity and the value of involving the end-user in the design
process has resulted in a number of user design approaches. Two models that enable
personalisation and engagement in the design process are co-design and mass customisation.
The term co-design has been described as having “gained currency as a general term” (Binder et
al., 2008, p. 82). Although it might be used in various applications and across multiple fields of
design, it will be considered here in relation to product design. Co-design, as the authors
understand it, is often utilised early in the design process. Leading practitioners in the field
Elizabeth Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers (2008, p. 6), have defined co-design as “collective
creativity as it is applied across the whole span of a design process”, for them it is a “specific
instance of co-creation.” According to Sanders and Stappers (2008, p. 6) co-design does not
simply refer to the collaboration between trained designers, but importantly also encompasses
designers collaborating with non-designers during the design process. According to this
definition, co-design is unlikely to take place during or after the manufacture phase, as the codesign approach relies on facilitating collaboration between the involved parties.
Mass customisation is the process in which “the end user gets to choose certain features such as
colour and apply them to a pre-designed product” (Szita, 2009, p. 109). The website Shoes of Prey
[http://www.shoesofprey.com/] provides an example of mass customisation in relation to
footwear. The end-user interacts with a carefully designed software interface, which allows for
various elements of the shoe, such as shoe lining, and toe treatment to be applied to the selected
shoe type. The personalisation occurs in the assembly and finishing of the product. Whilst this
website arguably provides a greater degree of customisation than the comparable footwear
example of NikeID Custom Shoes [www.NIKEid.com], the customisation remains restricted to a
set of predetermined selections, even if this palette is quite expansive. While this degree of
personalisation may suit some end-users, the level of personalisation remains limited. Frank Piller
(2008, p. 631) explains the economic efficiency of the type of personalisation that mass
customisation production provides, explaining that it “meets the demands of each individual
customer, but that can still be produced with mass production efficiency.” Therefore unlike mass
manufacture which results in standardised products, in a mass customisation approach to
production, end-users have control over some preselected aspects of the finished designed
product. Frank Piller (2008, p. 631) has suggested that manufacturers should provide toolkits to
enable end-users the potential for “defining, configuring, or modifying their individual solution
within the given set of choice options.” Unlike the user-completion model that will be described,
in a mass customisation model the final finished product is provided to the end-user. As a result,
the emotional connection between the end-user and the product is likely to be minimal. Ruth
Mugge believes that in order for an emotional bond with the product to emerge, effort is what is
required during the personalisation process. Mugge et al. (2009, p. 473) feel that often in relation
to mass customisation this effort, both mental and physical, is low (and physical is generally
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
4 | Page
absent altogether). With such thinking in mind, the authors propose an alternative approach –
user-completion.
User-completion model – an overview
The user-completion approach is one that the authors have proposed after developing it to
design a new interior lighting solution for the Australian market. To best understand the usercompletion approach, we must look again at the design process. The user-completion approach
focuses on a specific point in the design process - assembly and completion. It is important to
note that while the authors believe that the user-completion approach has the potential to be
applied to various fields of design, it is considered here specifically in relation to product design
and will be explained through the final stages of product assembly and finishing.
In the design process the final stages are usually product assembly and finishing, or sometimes
occurring in reverse order, finishing of product components and then assembly. ‘Finishing’, in
product design usually refers to a paint or surface finish, or it may be a hand applied process,
such as upholstering, or other decoration. In assembly the product, which is usually made up of
separate components, is assembled to designer specifications. As in the mass customisation
approach, the different components may be configured in different combinations to offer
different functions, size, or visual appearance to the end-user or retail business requirements. The
user-completion approach is no different to this, in that the end-user decides how the final
product will look, how it will function and its visual appeal. The difference is that in mass
customisation, the manufacturer will assemble to end-user requirements, whilst in the usercompletion approach, the end-user assembles, and hence they can ‘try out’ different
combinations, functions, visual appearance –thus they have creative control over this part of the
design process. This also applies to the finishing of the product in which end-users are given
creative control and become part of the creation process. Allowing users to have this control and
involvement, to customise and personalise the product to their wants and desire can have, as
previously mentioned, a positive effect on their relationship with the end product. As Mugge et al
(2009, p. 469) explains:
“[the] personalization process requires the investment of a great deal of effort, the person is occupied with
the product for an extended period of time, which may positively influence the strength of the emotional bond
with the product”.
Figure 1 illustrates where the authors see the user-completion model placed on a graph showing
increasing levels of end-user participation in various design models, as originally proposed by
Alastair Fuad-Luke in Design Activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. The authors suggest
that user-completion exceeds the level of participation provided by co-creation as the emotional
bond formed between the end-user and product may be greater.
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
5 | Page
Figure 1 User-completion model (after Alastair Fuad-Luke (2009). Design Activism: beautiful
strangeness for a sustainable world. London: Earthscan: 143).
The user-completion approach is best suited to product design, particularly where a hands on
approach to assembly and finish is embraced. For these reasons it draws similarities to the ‘hand
of the maker’ in hand crafted objects. One of the authors (and her design partner) of the award
winning design practice bernabeifreeman recently applied this approach when designing a new
interior lighting product – the Stitch Light series (see Figure 2).
From the initial stages of the design process, it was decided that the product would be designed
in such a way to allow the end-user to assemble and finish the products, allowing the light to take
on different forms, lighting directions and final visual ‘look’. To do all this the designers believed
that the ‘product’ would be presented as a ‘design kit’, or series of specifically designed
components, that could then be fitted together in various combinations that the end-user would
assemble to their individual needs and tastes. Until the end-user undertakes these tasks, there is
no final product and possibly no function associated with the product. The user-completion
approach is arguably different to adaptive products, which Miles Park describes as requiring “the
designer to create a product that is intentionally ‘unfinished’ or ‘open’ to be completed by the
user” (Best, 2010, p. 67). As part of this approach Park explains that “user-observation and
testing techniques” are “integrated into the design process in a two-way traffic between the
designer and user” (Best, 2010, p. 67). In the user-completion model proposed here, the two-way
traffic does not occur, with the ‘design kit’ simply being passed onto the end-user. The usercompletion approach relies on the specialised skills of the designers to provide the components
and understand the manufacturing options, whilst leaving some details of the finished product to
the end-user to decide upon. It should be noted that the skill of the designer is in no way
diminished by embracing the involvement of the end-user – instead, the designer is required to
understand the product in new ways and forecast its potentialities. This will be discussed in
relation to a case study of the Stitch Light series.
Case Study: Stitch Light series
Figure 2 Stitch Light final combinations and details (Photo by R. Bernabei).
The Stitch Light kit is made up of a variety of different lighting pendant forms, made from
aluminium spinnings (see Figure 3). These spinnings are carefully designed to be joined in
different combinations, upside down or on their own. The ‘design kit’ also includes a selection of
different perforated aluminuim diffusers that can work with the spinnings in numerous
combinations. It also comprises a lamp holder, electrical wiring, and nylon cord that can be
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
6 | Page
embroidered to customise the light. It was envisioned that the end-user could customise their kit
on purchase, either online or in a retail environment, deciding what spinnings or diffusers they
may like. This decision would be aided by looking at examples of different light combinations
that are achievable. There would also be examples provided to the end-users of different finishes
(paint colours the spinning would be available in) and of embroidery styles used to embellish the
light. The kit would also include instructions and access to an online gallery of other lights endusers had designed. The online gallery remains in its development phases, however prototypes of
the Stitch Light series have been exhibited at the Stories in Form exhibition at Object: Australian centre
for design [http://object.com.au/exhibitions-events/entry/stories_in_form/]. The exhibition
showcased a variety of options possible with the tool kit, which were prepared by bernabeifreeman.
Figure 3 Stitch Light component kit (Photo by R. Bernabei).
This user-completion approach is arguably quite different to co-design. Co-design, perhaps in its
very definition, does not allow the ability to accommodate this method of working, because codesign relies on collaboration between the designer and end-user usually in the earlier stages of
the design process. In contrast to this, in a user-completion approach the designer retains full
control until a certain point, before handing over the mass manufactured ‘kit-of-parts’ to the enduser from which to select, make and complete. The designers spent a large amount of time
conceptualising how an element or technique could be designed into the product which allows
the end-user to personalise the product during its making, without any assumption that the enduser had any prior skills, only an enthusiasm to be involved in the design. Passing over the final
details of a design to the end-user recognises the shift that has occurred in design away from the
“paradigm of the master-designer” (Burns et al., 2006, p. 6).
In allowing end-users to customise the final details, they are given the opportunity to create
products that are not only more suited to their final use, but are also personalised – a ‘one-off’.
Craft practice results in one-off unique pieces. The user-completion model has parallels with
craft, in that the end-user ends up with a one-off-design to some extent. Yet it is important to
note that all components of the Stitch Light kit were mass produced, only the assembly and final
detailing required a hands-on approach. In contrast, craft objects are characterised by the
involvement of the hand with the object and hand-made making processes. It is reliant on the
“maker’s tacit knowledge and skill, based on repeated practice, and involves chance and an ability
to improvise” (Sparke, 2009, p. 20). The Stitch Light, while mass produced, was able to allow for a
craft-like approach from the end-user. As Kate Fletcher and Lynda Grose (2012, p. 146-47)
explain:
“Craft is hands-on, resource based and practical. It has a visceral connection with materials and the way
they are shaped into forms for display or use. It involves the actual doing of something rather than merely
the experience of being done to– that is, the practice”.
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
7 | Page
The designers felt that the Stitch Light would appeal to the end-user who wanted to engage in
“doing”. In recent years there has been a resurgence of craft activities, due in part to the aid of
the web, which has brought together a vast community through blogs, forums and selling
opportunities. An intelligent use of craft for future mass produced products is best summed up
by Hella Jongerius who says that; “handicraft offers a powerful response to the restrictions of
industry, but it has to be intelligently incorporated into the industrial process” (Schouwenberg et
al., 2010, p. 31). By combing craft and mass manufacture in the user-completion approach, the
end-user is allowed to personalise mass manufactured elements in a craft-like manner, which
allows for all the appeal of craft to be transferred to a mass consumer product.
Figure 4 Stitch Light finishing and personalisation (Photo by R. Bernabei).
In a user-completion approach, it is the physical interaction with the product that completes the
production of the product (see Figure 4). The effective design of the ‘component kit’ for the
Stitch Light was critical to the success of the product. The spinning and diffuser components and
embroidery option, must give the end-user enough lighting options, as well as visual diversity. It
was also deemed important that with careful design making assembly easy and changeable, it
would not require high-level skills from the end-user. This was an important consideration; if the
product is too difficult to assemble and finish the end-user may give up and not finish the
product due to frustration with the process. For a truly successful final product, the kit of
components should allow people with differing level of skills, both low skilled and highly skilled,
to be challenged and obtain a satisfying result. The Stitch Light is successful in achieving thisdifferent lighting solutions are achievable with or without the embroidery finishing, yet if one is
skilled in this area or enthusiastic, they can take this finishing to a very detailed degree. The Stitch
Light is also successful from a commercial view, as the cost of the components is quite reasonable
to the results which can be achieved, it allows the product to command a higher price, as it
incorporates the potential to be a one of a kind product.
Conclusion
The user-completion approach defined by the authors is particularly concerned with the final
phases in the design process – the making, the formation of the final product and end-user
attachment to the product. This can be considered different to the co-design and mass
customisation models discussed earlier. User-completion encompasses the handing over of the
non-complete product to the end-user for completion and personalisation. It encompasses the
act of physically altering the product, to give new or changed forms or visual appearance. The
user-completion approach requires time, effort and skill from the end-user to complete the
design. These areas of the process are very much entrenched with the materials and finishing, and
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
8 | Page
it is through the various choices that individual personalisation of the product occurs. Unlike
mass customisation where there are limited choices that the end-user can select, user-completion
has almost unlimited outcomes that can be achieved- the resolution or refinement of which is
dependent upon skills levels of the end-users. The user-completion model presents many
similarities to that of craft, particularly in the investment of time and energy that “brings the
powerful promise of emotional rewards; it anchors people in material reality and allows them to
take pride in their work” (Fletcher & Grose, 2012, p. 147).
The case study of the Stitch Light illustrated how crucial the design of the ‘kit-of-parts’ is, in
incorporating an element or activity over which the end-user retains control, allowing the finished
product to be truly personalised. Perhaps this is the most profound difference that sets usercompletion apart from mass customisation, along with the final physical assembling and finishing
of the product by the end-user. The Stitch Light spinnings and diffusers can be easily assembled
into various configurations, by anyone of any skill level, the embroidery embellishment allows
more highly skilled end-users to really excel and have a higher input of involvement. However,
the embroidery was also designed in such a way that lower skilled end-users can still receive a
rewarding result. It should be acknowledged that end-users will have differing ideas about what
constitutes a successful result, and therefore any result that an end-users is satisfied with should
be deemed as valid and receive recognition and acceptance for its creativity.
Through the design of the Stich Light, the designers became aware that the user-completion
model also encompassed a rather high level of risk for both designers and end-users. The
designer must keep in mind that “people may spoil the product, because they are not sufficiently
skilled to design their own product” (Mugge et al., 2009, p. 473). This in turn could become a
negative for a company brand that adopts this user-completion approach, as the final outcome
may “conflict with a company’s branding strategy and with its intended image” (Franke &
Schreier, 2002, p. 231). There is also risk that the end-user may not complete the product, due to
lack of investment in time, or attempting something which is beyond their skills, and then the
product will hold very little value to anyone. This aspect of the user-completion model requires
delicate handling, particularly from a company perspective. The authors propose that what is
needed is careful marketing of the tool kit, for instance aimed at those in creative fields. In other
words, know the product and know the end-user.
Everyone is creative and many end-users want to use their skills and develop personalised
products. Kate Fletcher and Lydna Grose (2012, p. 144) further this by saying “that when stake
holders and their interests shape and contribute to the design process, the quality of a design
increases”. Current literature on emotional design suggests that end-users are more likely to form
an emotional attachment to a personalised product. We believe that the potential success of the
user-completion approach lies in the cross over of mass manufacture and craft, but differentiates
itself through the role that the end-user plays in the design process.
The designers hope that through the success of the Stitch Light, which is currently in development
for retail release, and with the aid of the user-completion approach, a new pathway will be
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
9 | Page
provided for designers and end-users alike to explore new concepts, interaction and consequently
build a greater bond between product and end-user.
References
Best, K. (2010). The Fundamentals of Design Management. Lausanne: AVA Academia.
Binder, T., Brandt, E., & Gregory, J. (2008). Design Participation(-s) – a creative commons for
ongoing change. CoDesign: international journal of cocreation in design and the arts, 4(2). 79-83.
Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006, 02). RED Paper 02: Transformation
Design. Retrieved 14 11, 2011, from Design Council:
http://www.designcouncil.info/mt/RED/transformationdesign/
Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2012). Fashion & Sustainability: design for change. London: Laurence King
Publishing.
Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2002). Entrepreneurial opportunities with toolkits for user innovation
and design. International Journal on Media Management, 4(4), 225-234.
Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design Activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. London: Earthscan.
Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L, & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2009). Emotional bonding with
personalised products. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 467-476, doi:
10.1080/09544820802698550
Norman, D. (2004). Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Piller, F. T. (2008). Observations on the present and future of mass customization. International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 19(4), 630-636. doi: 10.1007/s10696-008-9042-z
Randall,T., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. (2007). User Design of Customized Products. Marketing
Science, 26 (2), 268-280.
Sanders, E. B. N. & Jan Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign: international journal of cocreation in design and the arts, 4(1), 5-18,
doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
Schouwenberg, L., Rawsthorn, A., & Antonelli, P. (2010). Hella Jongerius: misfit. London: Phaidon.
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
10 | P a g e
Sparke, P. (2009). The Genius of Design. London: Quadrille.
Szita, J. (2009, Sep/Oct). Everyone’s an expert. Frame, 108-111.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation.
Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63-78.
Wind, J. & Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customerization: the Next Revolution in Mass
Customization. Journal of Interactive, 15 (1), 13-32.
Figure 1
Figure 2
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
11 | P a g e
Figure 3
Figure 4
10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future
12 | P a g e